Jump to content


Your 2022 Nebraska Cornhuskers


Mavric

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Undone said:

@Mavric: I think this points as much as anything to Frost & Lubick's scheme & play calling being very overblown on the list of problems. We really didn't have much trouble moving the ball down the field, and we ranked ahead of Wisconsin & Iowa in points per game (and I understand Iowa's number goes down from that curb stomping in the B1G title game but still).

 

We had two games where Martinez was a huge liability (Illinois & Purdue). Then we had 2-3 games where in my opinion special teams ultimately lost us the game.

 

We had the talent and the offensive coaching overall to be a 7-5 team, general. Before anybody jumps all over that I'm not saying the talent and the offensive coaching was spectacular or anything - but it was enough to make us a 7-5 team.

 

It was the acute, catastrophic stuff that we couldn't overcome that was the difference IMO.

 

This is exactly right.  The offense could have been better but wasn't as bad as people claim.  And I think it's probably more than your opinion that special teams lost us at least a couple of games.

 

I think 7-5 would have been pretty attainable even without any huge improvements.  By some statistical analysis, we were more likely to be 11-1 last year than we were 3-9.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

17 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

The run game was the main reason the offense couldn't do sh*t in the red zone.

 

As has been pointed out multiple times - including just now in this thread - this is completely inaccurate.

 

But some people want to believe it so the myth lives on.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

This is exactly right.  The offense could have been better but wasn't as bad as people claim.  And I think it's probably more than your opinion that special teams lost us at least a couple of games.

 

I think 7-5 would have been pretty attainable even without any huge improvements.  By some statistical analysis, we were more likely to be 11-1 last year than we were 3-9.

I read that same statistical analysis that you're referring to and they basically ran a simulation using all of our statistics 5000 times and only came up with a 3-9 season twice.  The simulations showed the we should have been an 7-7 or 8-4 team.  You could easily point to 3-4 games where one play could have changed the outcome of the game.  Crazy really.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Guess the author of this quote:

 

 

We’ve got to score in the red zone.  In the red zone, as far as finishing drives, we’ve got to be better at that. It shouldn’t have come down to three field goals. We should have been able to punch a couple of those in."

 

That was one game. Statistically over the course of the year, we were fine (not great) scoring TDs once we got to the red zone. Big improvement over 2020 anyway, when we only scored TDs about 50% of the time. There's room for improvement in getting into the end zone once we're close, but if we made our red zone field goals and kicked instead of going for it on 4th against Michigan and 1st half of Wisconsin (which we would have done if there was any confidence in the kicker), we're at 91% overall and top-15 in the country. Even building in a couple misses we'd be comfortably in the acceptable range.

 

I would love for us to have a higher TD%, but I agree with the people saying that was not our biggest problem. It feels like it when you're in close games and missed a red zone opportunity, but there were so many additional things that hurt us just as bad or worse.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

7 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

That was one game. Statistically over the course of the year, we were fine (not great) scoring TDs once we got to the red zone. Big improvement over 2020 anyway, when we only scored TDs about 50% of the time. There's room for improvement in getting into the end zone once we're close, but if we made our red zone field goals and kicked instead of going for it on 4th against Michigan and 1st half of Wisconsin (which we would have done if there was any confidence in the kicker), we're at 91% overall and top-15 in the country. Even building in a couple misses we'd be comfortably in the acceptable range.

 

I would love for us to have a higher TD%, but I agree with the people saying that was not our biggest problem. It feels like it when you're in close games and missed a red zone opportunity, but there were so many additional things that hurt us just as bad or worse.

 

 

 

Incorrect. 

Link to comment

Now the one place where I'd call out Scott's program's play calling across his first four years is inside the opponents' 10 yard line.

 

Maybe last year was better in this area. And maybe some of the time the failures were just due to failed execution. But it seemed like Frost asked Adrian to make a lot of those plays instead of having gotten a power run formation dialed in.

 

However, that sort of flies in the face of stats that Mavric posted about where our TD count ranked us last year, so...   :dunno    :waste

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Guess the author of this quote:

 

 

We’ve got to score in the red zone.  In the red zone, as far as finishing drives, we’ve got to be better at that. It shouldn’t have come down to three field goals. We should have been able to punch a couple of those in."

 

Find me any coach at any level that says "we're as good as we want to be in the red zone.  No need to get any better."

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

As has been pointed out multiple times - including just now in this thread - this is completely inaccurate.

 

But some people want to believe it so the myth lives on.


You can't just dismiss field goals. If you can't move the ball in the red zone you resort to a FG...I think you made a point it wasn't as bad as it seemed but end of the day you were 71st in PPG. Year before 102nd. We haven't been a top 50 offense since Frost has been here. 

 

Nebraska was 20th in yards per game last year and 71st in scoring...can't just be due to 8/16 FGs. 

Link to comment
Just now, BIG ERN said:

You can't just dismiss field goals. If you can't move the ball in the red zone you resort to a FG...I think you made a point it wasn't as bad as it seemed but end of the day you were 71st in PPG. Year before 102nd. We haven't been a top 50 offense since Frost has been here. 

 

You absolutely can just dismiss field goals if you're talking about how the offense performed.  The offense performed fairly decent.  The special teams were terrible.  You put it together and the team was below average.  That's really not that hard to understand.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Farms said:

I read that same statistical analysis that you're referring to and they basically ran a simulation using all of our statistics 5000 times and only came up with a 3-9 season twice.  The simulations showed the we should have been an 7-7 or 8-4 team.  You could easily point to 3-4 games where one play could have changed the outcome of the game.  Crazy really.

 

Ya, I agree.  I mean what the heck is going on with Scott actually having to fire half of his staff, reduce his pay and bring in potentially two possible candidates to replace him?  I mean statistically, we could have gone 11-1.  We are only one player away.  This is a really good team.  We love these guys!  Heck, Trev should have locked him into a new contract and deal just like the old AD after Scott was 4-5 on his way to a 5-7 season.  Scott needs our support, not criticism for his coaching and player development.

 

In all seriousness, ya, run that simulation 5000 times and only get 3-9 twice ... and what I hear is crediting to Frost that he has just had bad luck.  I mean, why don't we just throw in that the B1G is scheduling us to lose, the refs won't give us a call and the media is biased and against us.  It feels like "cry me a river" and "the lawyer screwed me" instead of the product on the field.  What "win" felt good to you?  For me, it was NW and the way we ran it and then had no fumbles or interceptions. Yet, it is how the team performed in the tight games where we just seek to find a way to break down and implode.  That stuff can't be statistically compiled.  It can't even be coached.  

 

So, if it is all unfair, and statistically just impossible, how unlucky of Frost to go 4-7, 5-8, 3-5, and 3-9.  You would think it would just be a "strange" year.  But, it's every year  ... and then folks pull out one year, show the 5000 similation and prescribe that it's just an anomaly.  Maybe he is the Andy Dufrane of college football and its all just unfair.  

 

I suppose that means that 4-8, 5-7 or 6-6 is improvement and with the statistical impossibility that will occur means he will need to get more benefit of the doubt.  If it was fantasy football, we'd all be calling this guy an idiot as he claims he should have been in the championship game ... and have won.

 

So, if the statistically anomaly goes away, we will go 9-3 easily and probably upset OU or Michigan and really be the Champs [going 10-2 or 11-1] of the East and play OSU in the B1G Championship and a shot at a Natty.  I'm all for it.  The schedule is very easy. I'm not believing that will happen and I'm sure even the next season [if we went say 9-3 this year] that we would again go 9-3 or better under Frost.  

 

If what I've expressed sounds negative, it is suppose to.  I think the days of, "Ah shucks Coach Frost, that was a tough loss.  Go get 'em next week" need to be over.  It's "WIN BABY WIN" ... or be replaced!

 

I'm finished with putting the red lipstick on the pig.  This is "pig" and it's horrid.  I'd rather kill the pig and eat the bacon if we get more "statistics" to claim how "good" we are.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...